Posted on 08/31/2013 11:03:18 AM PDT by kathsua
Let me see if I've got this right. President Barack Obama has decided the Syria government has used unacceptable means of killing Syrians so Obama is considering demonstrating the acceptable way of killing Syrians by using conventional weapons to kill Syrians.
The fact that Obama is even considering such an action raises doubts about his sanity.
Killing residents of a country because the country's government used chemical weapons to attack another country might be acceptable. However, the United States cannot justify punishing residents of a country because its government has mistreated them. Such an action would compound the original injury.
If the United States has evidence Syrian government officials have violated international law, the correct response would be to present the evidence to the World Court for prosecution for war crimes whenever prosecution becomes practical.
Killing even one innocent Syrian for a Syrian government official's mistreatment of other Syrians would be murder. If Obama kills any civilians to "punish" Syrian government officials, Congress should impeach and remove Obama from office for the high crime of murder. The United States should then turn Obama over to the World Court for possible prosecution for war crimes.
The 25th Amendment to the Constitution assigns the Vice President and member of the president's cabinet the responsibility of monitoring a president's mental and physical health and relieving him if it appears he is not mentally or physically able to properly handle the powers of the presidency. The responsibility is similar to the responsibility of senior officers on a ship to relieve a captain who has become unable to handle the captain's duties.
If Obama is considering killing innocent Syrians to punish its government for mistreating other Syrians, the cabinet should ask mental health professionals to evaluate whether or not Obama should be relieved of his duties until such time as he regains the mental competence to handle the office responsibly.
Obama’s foreign policy legacy will potentially be a huge war or a world war.
Obama’s domestic legacy will be a financial disaster that will ultimately destroy/devalue the dollar leading to some form of “world government” led by bankers.
Potential add-on’s:
Destruction of the best healthcare system in the world...
The push of the LGBT movement far beyond equal rights into outright celebration...
The resurgence of racial hostility led by (of all things) the DOJ and President’s bully pulpit...
The weakening of our military through lack of funding and social experimentation...
The food stamp President legacy...
Potentially, (I hope) history will show this administration as the most corrupt - we have never seen so many big donors so well funded (green jobs, green energy, La Raza, Acorn type groups, unions, etc. etc.)
The Amnesty administration...
The broken promises President - many leftists (to their credit) recognize and are angry over all the broken promises.
Entanglements concerning the “red line” reveal a pervasive misunderstanding of war and diplomacy as irreconcilable alternatives. For this Administration military action would be a bewildering, tragic, accidental consequence of hideous attacks enabled by their failed diplomacy.
To manage this contentious environment, Obama brought his newly minted Nobel Peace Prize. He and the nominating committee considered Basher al-Assad received a crushing blow as Obama lead Western leaders in saying he must go to benefit the Syrian people. Clearly, al-Assad should have realized the brilliance of Western conflict resolution and entertained peaceful dialogue.
However, al-Assad shares the perception of Greg Lewis in American Thinker, who portrayed Obama as a beta male. The alpha male dog approaches directly, while the beta male displays acquiescent gestures signaling submission. Lewis saw submissiveness in bowing to King Abdullah, sending John Kerry to Syria, and in generally ridiculing the U.S. whenever Obama appeared on an international stage.
When al-Assad’s actions beleaguered the feebleness he trampled in rising to power, liberal statesmen became befuddled by the intricacies and chicaneries of this unorthodox diplomacy. Al-Assad saw this confusion and ongoing debates narrowing national interests. He then asked why abandon strategies proven against behaviors disregarded in my rise to dominion?
Effective diplomacy would have been methodical, overt/covert, multi-faceted, and predictably lethal. Talks, conferences and economic measures would have been war without bloodshed invigorated by intelligence, propaganda, and espionage. Military action could then exact grievous forfeitures from ruling elites through the planned consequences of inattention to international isolation and internal dissention.
Did We Elect a Beta Male As President?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/did_we_elect_a_beta_male_as_pr_1.html
Obama now states he will not attack until he gets Congressional approval. That will never come. Obama knows that if he attacked, his Presidency would end in ruin. He would have been responsible for a much wider war in the Mideast, involving Israel.
The only way a Syrian bombing could be justified is if it targeted the Syrian leadership exclusively.
However, I believe it is illegal.
The only thing unjust and immoral would be to bomb just Syria when Iran needs a thorough and complete bombing irrespective of collateral damage.
It cannot be done surgically as in order to get the message across to the people you have to take lives the way they do. If you take war to them you have to take it to them on their terms.
9-11? Were they concerned with innocents or morality?
Unless one takes it to them on their terms, they will always come back to plague us, just like cancer.
At least the world will know who to blame for the broken little bodies that will be shown on YouTube.
Not to mention mind-boggingly stupid.
The problem with the proposed Syrian bombing - just as with Clinton's Serbian bombing - is that it seems to have no strategic purpose.
If there is any motivation behind it at all, it seems to be as a warning against the regime to avoid committing atrocities and use conventional warfare in its fighting.
Reagan and Bush were looking to decapitate enemy regimes that had gone to war against America or deliberately murdered Americans.
Obama and Clinton look to warn regimes that do not deliberately target Americans to behave better.
It's a fundamentally unserious use of a serious power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.